Well as a D90 user I can tell that it's a great camera and certainly every penny you pay for it.I started off buying it with it's original lenses and then upgraded with a Nikon 80-400mm and a Sigma 300 mm f/2.8. Always get excellent results and still have to find a negative aspect on it.

I recently used the Sigma 150-500mm and found it to be a great lens, not too heavy and gives you a good reach at 500mm, which is what you need in the bush.Andy

"You can leave Africa but Africa never leaves you"LIFE IS MADE OF GOOD AND BAD THINGS, I TAKE THE GOOD AND YOU CAN KEEP THE BAD!!!Andy Benaglia

Only you know your budget and the ammount of time you would have to wait for the D7000 before you can buy it. If you have a trip comming up soon, I'd say go for the D90 - it really still is a great DSLR, but if there is no rush and you could bear the itch (yes, that itch could be hard to ignore!!) it may be worth it to wait 'till you can buy the D7000.

I also bought a D7000 (body only)in January 2011 as my first SLRD. Before that I was playing around with a Sony cybershot (mik and drukkie). As a lens I bought a Nikkor 70 x 300 f4.5-5.6 with a Kenko 1.4 convertor. I used that lens during my second visit to the Kgalagadi and I enjoyed the camera and lens a lot. Nothing wrong with that lens on the D7000. And the D7000 was so easy to learn for a beginner like me.

Then I bougth myself a Nikkor 70 x 200 f2.8 lens with a Nikon 2.0 convertor (my wife's convertor) and I used it during my third Kgalagadi trip. What a difference! The photos posted on my Trip Report (trip 1) was the D7000 with 70x200 f2.8 lens and 2.0 convertor.

My wife is using a D300 and D3s and she is still very impressed with easy handling (many of the important menu functions can be adjusted from the "outside" and you don't need to go into the menu of the camera), and the feel of the D7000. She also told me the D7000 is the upgrade of the D90 meaning you can get a D90 at a good price but.....?! The D7000 has won several awards - meaning the upgrade is probably worth it.

If you can wait, rather wait to get the D7000 for the following TWO reasons:* firstly the D7000 is a reasonable upgrade on the D90 in most respects, but more importantly, * the improvement in handling of ISO levels means that you CAN use slower (read MUCH less initial outlay) lenses to get similar results in low light. No longer necessary to get a 70-200 f2.8VR lens (although it is still on the wish-list), as the higher and improved ISO handling allows for low-light pictures way beyond what the D90 can handle.

If budget is a major long-term issue, consider the merits of the D5100 at a much lower entry cost, with similar benefits. Lenses are a personal choice based on usage and cost, and will generally never need to be replaced, merely upgraded if you do not go for the best upfront....

I wished and waited a year to get the 70-200f2.8VR and finally decided that a new D7000 would take better pictures with the 70-300VR than my trusty D70 would with a 70-200VR. so I got a new camera and lens AND I saved R8000 in the process.... I should be able to understand and use all the features of this D7000 within the next 23 years

decisions, decisions and decisions... hmmmm.... done

"Take nothing but memories, leave nothing but footprints"

Photographs help to crystallize memories, but cannot be seen to be a replacement of them!

I recently acquired a D7000 as a second body to my D3s and I have not been dissappointed! It works very well in terms of autofocus and functionality, image quality is great and can operate at high ISO settings.

I was a Canon user before and would dare say that the D7000 image quality is even better than the Canon 7D (which is essentially in a higher spec bracket)

Here are some sample shots from my recent trip to Kruger - haven't processed many though...

This was captured using the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8 VR-II plus 1.4x teleconverter:

This was captured using the Nikkor 500mm f4 VR-II plus 1.4x teleconverter:

The D700 replacement in the form of the D800 is expected to be officially announced today. 36mp FX camera. Have a look at http://www.nikon.com/news/2012/0207_dslr_01.htm (many other sites available, including facebook) and then decide if it is worth it...

From my personal perspective, the BIGGEST benefit for all those wildlife photographers that chase technology in this field, is the ability to FOCUS at f8, which translates into being able to use a 600mm f4 lens, together with a 2x converter, giving 1200mm in FX mode and still having full functionality. Of course, your could still crop down to DX mode, getting around 16mp shots at 1800mm with AUTOFOCUS STILL OPERATIONAL

If frames per second and/or low light has to be the best available, then I would suggest looking at the D4, as the FPS rate of 4 in FX mode or 6 in DX mode may just be the limiting factor, but then again, the D4 is over R60k locally

List Price for the D800 is currently expected to be $2999.00 ... All donations gratefully accepted

"Take nothing but memories, leave nothing but footprints"

Photographs help to crystallize memories, but cannot be seen to be a replacement of them!

Spargish ..... no, not near broadcast quality, AT FULL HIGH DEFINITION digital, broadcast qualily. 1920 x 1080 (30, 25, 24 fps), so now it is simply up to the user to have the creative ability to shoot a National Geographic type documentary

The challenge for users of this equipment will be to extract and fully utilise all the features available. What a nice challenge to have

"Take nothing but memories, leave nothing but footprints"

Photographs help to crystallize memories, but cannot be seen to be a replacement of them!

As far as my knowledge the d5100 has the same sensor as the d7000. I would rather go for the d5100 as it is much newer than the d90. D90 has been discontinued, but brought back again. D5100 has a lot more futures in it.

I challenge the assertions above, that (1) technique and (2) quality of lenses are that much of an issue.

Firstly, while the technique used to keep your lens stable will always be an issue, and probably more so in a camera with such a high resolution, the effective resolution of this camera is little different to that of a Nikon D7000, and less than that of a Canon D60/7D, given that they use cropped sensors, especially when using a lens with a similar focal length.

Secondly, and taking into account the use of a lens with a similar focal length on each of a DX and FX camera, you will get a much wider perspective in the FX-captured image. As such, should you wish to have a similar image perspective from an FX camera as you get from a DX camera, you would either need a lens with a focal length of 1,5x (or in canon's case, 1,6x) on the FX camera, or crop to DX size (a bit of a waste of all those pixels )

Thirdly, lenses to resolve a 16mp image in DX in the case of the Nikon D7000, or an 18mp image for the canon D60/7D seem not to have been an issue to date. Why then, should resolving a 36mp image on a full-frame sensor, which does have a similar pixel size and improved light-capturing ability, cause additional concerns with the quality of the lenses used?

Note that three of the major benefits of a high-resolution sensor are the ability to:- print bigger pictures (I would suggest that few would really exploit this benefit to the full);- crop further than would otherwise be the case;- down-sample pictures to final output size required and in-so-doing, resolve many other issues that cannot be achieved as successfully with an image from a lower resolution camera.

This does not imply that there are no disadvantages to high-resolution cameras, but I would still like to have the opportunity of exploiting the benefits of a D800 to the maximum.... Pity the bank manager says NO!

"Take nothing but memories, leave nothing but footprints"

Photographs help to crystallize memories, but cannot be seen to be a replacement of them!

Scottm wrote:I challenge the assertions above, that (1) technique and (2) quality of lenses are that much of an issue.

Firstly, while the technique used to keep your lens stable will always be an issue, and probably more so in a camera with such a high resolution, the effective resolution of this camera is little different to that of a Nikon D7000, and less than that of a Canon D60/7D, given that they use cropped sensors, especially when using a lens with a similar focal length.

Secondly, and taking into account the use of a lens with a similar focal length on each of a DX and FX camera, you will get a much wider perspective in the FX-captured image. As such, should you wish to have a similar image perspective from an FX camera as you get from a DX camera, you would either need a lens with a focal length of 1,5x (or in canon's case, 1,6x) on the FX camera, or crop to DX size (a bit of a waste of all those pixels )

Thirdly, lenses to resolve a 16mp image in DX in the case of the Nikon D7000, or an 18mp image for the canon D60/7D seem not to have been an issue to date. Why then, should resolving a 36mp image on a full-frame sensor, which does have a similar pixel size and improved light-capturing ability, cause additional concerns with the quality of the lenses used?

Note that three of the major benefits of a high-resolution sensor are the ability to:- print bigger pictures (I would suggest that few would really exploit this benefit to the full);- crop further than would otherwise be the case;- down-sample pictures to final output size required and in-so-doing, resolve many other issues that cannot be achieved as successfully with an image from a lower resolution camera.

This does not imply that there are no disadvantages to high-resolution cameras, but I would still like to have the opportunity of exploiting the benefits of a D800 to the maximum.... Pity the bank manager says NO!

Good points raised...

But here's the thing: if you're buying this camera to crop the living daylights out of every shot you will be missing the point IMHO. I get better image quality from an immense crop of an image from my 12.2mp D3s than I ever did with the Canon 7D (18.8mp) and than I can get with the D7000 (16mp) because of the pixel pitch this sensor has. Even large crops have immense detail. I have seen some good cropped examples from the D800...but I would want to test this baby for myself using my style of shooting in the conditions I often find myself in.

I don't think it's a case of "the D7000 can resolve most lenses" - remember that even though the pixel density is the same, the FX sensor is a physically larger sensor and with the density it has it will pick up the slightest deficiencies in lens build and technique. There are enough field reports from the first batch of these cameras on the net to corroborate this...some even go so far as to suggest optimal apertures to use these lenses at.

Anyway - would still love to test/have one... but I think we might have the same bank manager given the similar reactions to such notions...

Well as my old trusty Nikon D80 got stolen a while back it is time to buy myself a new camera.

I have some difficulty in choosing as the ones Im looking at are all good, and so on. And the above mentioned cameras I can get all within my budget, although the D7000 is a bit expensive, but saving another month or so isnt going to kill me. But if it were you, which one would you go for? I will mostly use a sigma 120-400mm lens with this camera.

Decisions decisions....

Ratpack Member.

The currents that shape our lives, flow from the attitudes we nurture everyday!

GerhardAll four cameras are excellent.Whilst both the D200 and D300 have been discontinued there are some very good second hand items available which will give very good service for some years to come. Most of my equipment is second hand and includes D200, D3 and D7000 (new), my daughter has my old D70 which is still producing superb results. The cameras abilities are only compromised by my incompetance as a photographer!!Obviously buying second hand equipment is a risk, however buying from a known reputable source will minimise this. A very good D200 will cost about UK£350 and a D300 about UK£450. I do not know the cost in SA or elsewhere.If you are buying a new camera body and can't afford the D4 then the D7000 is an excellent alternative and being a relatively new product is far better (but more expensive) than the very good D90.Don't forget that lenses are also very important. A poor lens on a superb body will still produce a poor image!!RegardsJDW